Wholly debunked Darwinist BS remains in textbooks

Typical Fox/Discovery Institute bullshit and obfuscation.
http://www.texarkanacollege.edu/~mstorey/TABT/Talking_Points.pdf

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

More braindead BS from Gunga. Nothing new.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

You are a hopeless asshole to bring this forward. The science books do NOT use Haeckels embryos, they use those from Strickleberger , who did the corrections of the HAeckelian drawings back in the 1980's. STrickelbergers embryo drawings still show gill arches and tails etc in the various stages of vertebrate embryo development and textbooks discuss the errors that Haeckel carried along for many years (until closer insoection got it right). MAking a case that "EVOLUTION IS WRONG" is just total academic fraud being perped by the Discovery Institute Jerks.
As far as the "tree of life" DNA evidence shows clearly how the branches are so related that common ancestry cannot be avoided. The douche from the Discovery Institute had the story all screwed up(mostly becauise hes on a political mission, not a scientific one).

An interesting thing is how closely the Discovery Institute spokesman implied their connection with Creationism and not Intelligent Design.

1 Reply

I am completely prepared to believe that Gunga is right in not being descended from an ape. A sea slug would be my guess.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You know that, by using his error filled thread titles and subsequent idiot links, hes just trying to raise some sand. I really dont believe that gunga can be that stupid to ignore developments in entire areas of "discovery based" science yet he does cling to other areas that rely upon these same discoveries. He must have a cleft in his brain that avoids any Cog. Diss. problems

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

I am completely prepared to believe that Gunga is right in not being descended from an ape. A sea slug would be my guess.

or a rock ?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I really dont believe that gunga can be that stupid to ignore developments in entire areas of "discovery based" science...

Are you sure about that?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
I really dont believe that gunga can be that stupid to ignore developments in entire areas of "discovery based" science...

Are you sure about that?

For example, here's Gunga in prime form from another thread:

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
It wasn't so much Jesus being killed, it was the idea promoted 300 and some years later that there was a bodily resurrection....

What the hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection saw was almost certainly some final sort of a large-scale bicameral thing ever seen on the Earth, i.e. a psychic and paranormal phenomenon but, to those who saw it, utterly indistinguishable from seeing Christ walking around in flesh as per scriptures.

Make no mistake however, Jesus never had any more use for dead bodies than you or I would. HAD HE actually tried walking around the near east for 40 days in a dead body (real, corporeal, physical etc. etc.) the Romans would have noticed it and crucified him a second time and done whatever it would have taken to ensure that he STAYED crucified....

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Ros, I know that gunga provides ample evidence that he is not too sophisticated in science , but, from his overall attempts at reasoning and his love of stuff like tech and guns, he isnt dumb. Im giving him some leeway to believe that hes actually not believing all his trash and he just is trying to get some talk going.

Now your last post does, Ill admit, have me reconsidering a bit. Maybe hes cognitavely bi-polar?

1 Reply

One of the benefits of having a different set of beliefs, to the point that others might think the beliefs are preposterous, is that it maintains the demographic that one prefers in one's neck of the woods. For example, Catholics and Jews tend not to move to those parts of the country where one could expect a Saturday morning knock on the door by nice Christians, bibles in hand, wanting to proselytize their faith.

I believe religion is a fairly good invisible moat, since many people still do like to live amongst those from a similar gene pool. And religion tends to correlate with gene pools, I believe. However, cities, being cosmopolitan, are by definition, places where many people live that are willing to live amongst diversity, and therefore tolerate different cultures, and religions, without criticisms, in my opinion.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

That may have even been true 100 years ago, but it holds no water today

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ros, I know that gunga provides ample evidence that he is not too sophisticated in science , but, from his overall attempts at reasoning and his love of stuff like tech and guns, he isnt dumb.

Lots of smart people are still crazy.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

That may have even been true 100 years ago, but it holds no water today

I do not agree, since while there are Catholics and Jews that live in the proverbial hinterland, the big urban centers still have the majority of Catholics and Jews. In my opinion, most of the Jews that wind up in the hinterland are either professionals, or relatives of a business that was started by a grandfather, or greatgrandfather 100 or so years ago. And they tend to be Reformed, not Orthodox.

My point stands, in that religion keeps people physically separated, since a majority of people like to live either amongst their own, or folks they feel comfortable with.

One can even see this regionally amongst Protestants, in that the midwest has many German/Scandanavian-Americans, while the south tends to be highly Anglo-Saxon.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You are a hopeless asshole to bring this forward. The science books do NOT use Haeckels embryos, they use those from Strickleberger , who did the corrections of the HAeckelian drawings back in the 1980's.

Translated into plain English more or less... The original bullshit stuck around in textbooks for a hundred years or more until Steve Gould denounced it in the 80s and then some yuppie lickspittle repolished the bullshit to allow it to remain in textbooks.

And I'm an asshole for saying anything about it, as usual....

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

No, youre an asshole for getting it totally wrong. Haeckel was wrong but not completely and later embryo drawings merely corrected thw number of gill arches. (They didnt remove any gill arches or tails). See for yourself. Youre trying to create an issue where non exists.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

No, youre an asshole for getting it totally wrong. Haeckel was wrong but not completely and later embryo drawings merely corrected thw number of gill arches. (They didnt remove any gill arches or tails). See for yourself. Youre trying to create an issue where non exists.

Gunga isn't interested in getting it right. He's only interested in pushing his own twisted agenda. That's why he continually misinterprets everything and only selectively reads what he wants to read.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/New-embryo-figure.gif

from Miller and Levine's textbook. The strict Haeckelian "ontogeny recaps phylogeny" is, of course , long recognized to be non economic. However, several features are preserved and spun off from in embryo development

0 Replies

Wholly debunked Darwinist BS remains in textbooks

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know